My tuppence worth, albeit from a Nikon user; if you don't have to carry your kit too far, go for primes every time. Personally, I'm not going to be overly impressed with having to carry too much over a 30 mile hike & a few thousand feet of ascent, so sometimes a zoom or two will just have to do. My 18-35 & 24-85 ED zooms cover just about everything I might need, and with a D700 represent a reasonably light compromise. Half a dozen Nikon primes might mean not getting the shot at all, but I suppose it would at least be a sharper empty space on a memory card ...

If you are stood here, and the mountains are over there, why would you want to make them look like a pea on a plate by using a 17-40mm lens?

Which is just another way to say stop thinking a wide angle lens is a 'landscape lens' just because it fits everything in as far as you can see horizon to horizon. Have an opinion about the landscape in front of you, decide what is important and photograph that. Any lens is a landscape lens, and if getting rid of the boring and extraneous bits of the landscape is at all important try a longer lens, anything 75mm upwards sorts the men from the boys

You make a good point, Steve, I do have a 70-200mm and a 100-400 for those "mountains far away on the horizon". I am also thinking of a 200mm prime lens too as it would be much sharpen than the 70-200mm. I won't be bringing the 100-400mm with me, way too heavy and cumbersome.